© Idōkan Poland Association
“IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”,
Vol. 15, no. 4 (2015), pp. 65–74
DOI: 10.14589/ido.15.4.9
PEDAGOGY
John A. Johnson1 (ABCEF), Peter Ha2 (DG)
Humanitas College, Kyung Hee University, Yongin (South Korea)
College of Physical Education, Kyung Hee University, Yongin (South Korea)
Correspondence: Prof. Dr John A. Johnson; Humanitas College, 1732 Deokyoungdae-ro, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si,
South Korea, 446-701; tel.: 81-01-2209-0704
e-mail: [email protected]
1
2
Elucidating pedagogical objectives for combat systems,
martial arts, and combat sports
Submission: 5.02.2015; acceptance: 24.05.2015
Key words: martial knowledge, physical education, self-cultivation
Abstract
To date, the varied purposes of studying martial knowledge have been lumped together under the ubiquitous term
martial arts. Combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports are commonly assumed to be identical, because their
physical skills all stem from using the body or weapons for combat purposes. As such, instructors of these systems
tend identify their skill sets under one term. However, from a pedagogical viewpoint, these three systems possess
unique learning objectives. This paper thus defines combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports according to
their final learning objectives to emphasize their distinctive educational qualities. Combat systems are for use in
combat or self-defense situations, otherwise understood as when all social rules give way to violence. Martial arts
offer a means of mental and social self-cultivation through a physical education curriculum based upon self-defense
techniques. Combat sports are reformulated martial arts with a focus on competition. Consequently, these systems’
learning objectives, or the purposes of studying, differ profoundly. Numerous positive repercussions will occur when
these learning systems are properly labeled. For instance, instructors will be able to establish more effective training
programs that work effectively toward these goals. Students will additionally understand their learning process and
be able to determine their progress in relation to their educational goals. Most importantly, instructors and students
will better determine their progress in relation to their personal educational goals.
Introduction
For the purposes of this paper, martial knowledge will be
classified as any collected body of knowledge of physical skills designed for the purpose of self-preservation
and/or self-defense, which appears to be what previous
researchers have defined as martial arts. It is believed this
is the current research is the first such attempt to delineate combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports. As
such, no previous research – pedagogical, philosophical,
or otherwise – has been performed on this topic. It is
hoped this paper shall be the impetus for further delineation of these three very distinct educational systems.
Delineating these three terms will facilitate more accurate pedagogical and educational research in the future.
Each martial knowledge system possesses unique
skills and methods of moving the body for self-persever-
ation. These skills are governed by either philosophical
or practical rationales. As each system uses the body differently for different reasons, the learning objectives of
each martial knowledge system will vary from system
to system. Learning objectives are a martial knowledge
system’s “key intents” [Phillips 2008]. For instance, Krav
Maga, a system of martial knowledge created for the
Israeli military, is learned typically for survival during
wartime, while Olympic Taekwondo focuses on competition.
Asian martial knowledge systems such as Taekwondo, Karate, Kung Fu, and a host of others have gone
beyond their respective countries to become global phenomena. These systems often compete for students with
western exercise and sports programs while arguably
offering many similar benefits. A consequent research
trend is to compare martial training with established
66
“IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”, Vol. 15, no. 4 (2015)
modes of physical exercise such as western sports and
dance [Allen 2013: 242-252]. Under the term “martial
arts,” previous researchers defined martial arts in relation to more established means of Physical Education.
Yet, Asian martial knowledge systems are as different from one another as they are from Western sports.
While Allen and others such as Cynarski, Obodynski,
and Zeng [2012] compare martial arts to exercise, sports,
and dance [129 –152], a conclusive delineation of what
constitutes a martial art has not yet been made. There
exists one clear distinction between learning martial
knowledge and learning sports, dance, and other means
of organized physical activity, however. That is, martial
knowledge teaches students to defend themselves in violent confrontations, which provides them with practical
knowledge applicable to areas beyond the dance studio
or playing field. Thus, the crucial distinguishing characteristic between martial knowledge and sport and dance
is the former’s unique capability of offering practical
knowledge and skills. Comparing martial knowledge
to dance and sports is therefore akin to doing the same
to the proverbial apple and orange.
For instance, taekwondo practice has been delineated into three broad categories: utilitarian, philosophy,
and pragmatic practices [Wasik 2014: 22]. While
informative, these terms are too vague to determine
the educational purposes of martial arts in general.
Researchers additionally have not discussed the fact
that martial arts have different training regimes, curricula, and educational goals. Proper examination of
and research in martial skills cannot begin until they
are fully defined along the lines of their final learning
objectives. While martial knowledge systems and other
forms of physical exercise, self-expression, and play may
typically share some characteristics, they are nevertheless a unique means of Physical Education.
Individual participants will learn martial knowledge
for a plethora of reasons [Allender, Cowburn, Foster
2006: 829-831; Jones, Mackay, Peters 2006: 28-34; Kano
2005; Stefanek 2004]. Indeed, there are as many varied
reasons for studying martial knowledge as there are students. What this paper focuses on, however, are three of
the top seven reasons for studying martial knowledge;
e.g., combat, self-cultivation, and sport [Jones, Mackay,
Peters 2006: 28-34]. As a consequence, this article elucidates what constitutes a combat system, martial art, and
martial sport regardless of national origin according to
their individual educational goals.
Instructors decide what the purpose of his or her
teachings are, and they are consequently responsible for
how martial knowledge is interpreted by students. This
paper takes the viewpoint of the educator rather than
the student, so students’ impetuses for attending class are
not pertinent here. For this reason, this paper is unique
as it considers the martial knowledge educator’s general
learning objectives (i.e., how their knowledge should be
viewed and used by students) rather than the students’
motivation for attending class.
When considering the role of learning objectives
in any class, one must remember it is the instructor or
institution that establishes them, and not the students.
Thus, while students’ personal motivations for learning a particular martial knowledge system lie within
their minds alone, the key factor here is the purpose for
which the system was created and for what reasons it is
taught. Undoubtedly, a Canadian student may take Krav
Maga classes primarily to improve his/her cardiovascular
fitness; however, the educational objectives for that particular knowledge system remain fundamentally based
on survival during warfare. If an instructor changes the
learning objectives to meet students’ demands for physical fitness, the purpose of that martial knowledge system
changes and a new knowledge system is created. Thus,
assuming all systems of martial knowledge are taught
with identical learning objectives is akin to believing
American football, soccer, and rugby are indistinguishable because they share common skills and tactics.
When the fundamentals of a system of martial knowledge are taught differently from other forms of physical
exercise and sports, they must be examined in a different
light. Precedence exists for classifying the various modes of
martial knowledge systems. Draeger [2007a] stated ascribing “all Japanese martial skills under one classification”
was careless. He also took great pains to distinguish the
uniqueness of Japanese martial arts through their evolution from systems of combat to means of mental and social
self-cultivation (hitherto referred to only as “self-cultivation”) [Draeger 2007a] and finally on to modern systems
of combat sports [Draeger 2007b]. Through his work, it is
possible to see three distinct learning objectives for martial
knowledge: combat survival, self-cultivation, and sport.
However, his use of Japanese terminology and focus on
Japanese systems of martial knowledge prevents his labels
and concepts from being applied to non-Japanese martial knowledge systems (e.g., Taekwondo, Kung Fu, Krav
Maga, Muay Thai, etc.). Moreover, his texts do not address
the learning objectives of martial knowledge systems specifically; they instead focus solely on explaining Japanese
martial knowledge in its various historical forms. Therefore, when it is realized that martial knowledge systems
can be classified according to their original educational
objectives, and they differ from sports and other modes
of exercise due to their mental and social self-cultivation,
separating the practice and education of these martial
knowledge systems from that of sports and dance for clarification and edification purposes is more than justified.
Methods
A literature review focusing on martial arts education
and philosophy was conducted to determine what, if
Johnson J.A., Ha P. — Elucidating pedagogical objectives for combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports
67
any, types of martial arts knowledge exist. English texts
were primarily consulted. No sources discussing the
differences between the various purposes for studying
martial knowledge were found other than the aforementioned Draeger text.
The primary reason for pursing martial knowledge was identified: self-preservation. Yet, to group all
of the reasons for learning this type of knowledge is
pedagogically unsound, because doing so ignores their
fundamental differences. Thus, a new term, combat
systems, was coined for systems used solely for self-preservation purposes (i.e., self-defense, military tactics,
policing actions, etc.). Two terms commonly used in
martial knowledge literature, martial arts and combat
sports, were then further defined according to their most
obvious educative aims. The literature review provided
evidence and support for all three definitions.
For the purposes of this paper, the three most common reasons for pursuing martial knowledge are defined
as combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports. In
the most succinct language possible, combat systems
are for self-defense or killing on the battlefield; martial
arts are for self-cultivation; and combat sports are for
competition. It is each system’s unique rationales for
training (i.e., their educational objectives and goals)
which influence their physical practices, modes, reasons
for training, educational practices, and philosophies. It
should moreover be noted that other purposes for teaching martial knowledge exist, so these three categories
of martial knowledge do not encapsulate all of types
of martial knowledge. This paper aims to illustrate the
diversity of martial knowledge by defining three of its
variants. We only aim to elucidate the one aspect which
differentiates one from the other: their final pedagogical
learning objectives.
Discussion
Combat Systems and Killing
Most individuals in pursuit of martial knowledge as well
as the layperson assume they are learning a method of
fighting, developing a martial spirit, and participating
in a sport simultaneously. In metaphoric language, this
equates to the assumption that studying mathematics
for an exam, learning mathematics to improve one’s
knowledge of the subject, and preparing for the Math
Olympiad are one and the same. Each of these reasons
for learning math are distinct even though the fundamental skills and knowledge are the same. Instructors
must accordingly teach each endeavor dissimilarly,
because each pursuit possesses a learning objective
unique from the others.
Martial knowledge systems are similar, since they
can be taught for a wide range of purposes. The confusion
surrounding the definition of martial art stems from the
fact they all offer physical education in the form of using
the body as weapon. Unlike the mathematics education
examples above in which educators train their students
for each individual goal differently, martial knowledge
instructors often assert training in their systems will produce exceptional fighters, moral students, and excellent
competitors simultaneously. These educational goals
cannot be achieved concurrently as each possesses distinctive educational learning objectives.
Respective examples of martial knowledge learning objectives can be 1) fighters must learn to defend
themselves in combat; 2) moral students must question
how to become better human beings; and 3) competitors must, on one end of the competition spectrum, play
for enjoyment, or, at the other end, strive to win at all
costs. No singular educational path for all three is possible. Thus, the martial knowledge systems commonly
grouped together under the term martial arts should be
viewed as separate educational pursuits.
Combat systems are organized systems of self-defense
or fighting that may or may not incorporate weapons,
which possess the ultimate objective of protecting one’s
country, property, or self. They “must be understood primarily as military skills, not methods of self-cultivation
or religious activity” [Lorge 2012]. Draeger [2007a] adds
combat systems are created for and by the individuals
engaging in combat activities. Self-designed systems are
apropos since the combatants whose lives depending on
the effectiveness of these systems have firsthand knowledge of what is needed on their battlefields.
Nations throughout time have possessed the weapons and organized means of self-protection as well as
the right to do so [Kano 1989]. Combat systems are thus
employed for either personal self-defense or aggressive
purposes, but can be applied and/or modified for other
means such as peacekeeping (i.e., the self-defense techniques police officers learn). These martial knowledge
systems preserve what is valuable: life, family, culture,
national stability, and other cherished tangible and
intangible treasures. They focus typically on the physical forms and strategies of combat and tend to lack
esoteric philosophies. Examples of combat systems
are Krav Maga, Japanese Jujutsu, and the U.S. Marine
Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP). The learning
objectives of a combat system are therefore to provide
soldiers and fighters the necessary physical skills needed
to survive at all costs.
The lessons acquired from combat systems are finite,
however. As their primary purpose to learn survival skills,
the motivation to learn anything else is stifled. Once the
student has learned combat skills, they are only required
to practice those skills until they are no longer needed.
There is no need to find other knowledge as the system’s
ultimate learning objective has been met.
68
“IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”, Vol. 15, no. 4 (2015)
Yet, the fact remains the lessons learned from combat systems can possess non-violent applications. While
most combat systems do not intend to help learners
become better human beings, it is possible to discern ethical or moral lessons from them. Kano stated self-defense
lessons can be applied to other areas of life [2005]. This
is exactly what he did when he reformulated the samurai systems of hand-to-hand combat known as Jujutsu
into Judo. He found lessons in the warlike techniques of
old that guided him throughout his personal and professional life effectively for decades [Stevens 2013]. Today,
we see this same process when business colleges apply
Sun Tzu’s The Art of War to various commercial strategies [Kaufman 2015]. Combat systems are consequently
not devoid of philosophies; practitioners only need to
extrapolate martial knowledge from a combat system’s
technique or strategy and apply it to another situation
outside of combat. The onus to do so is in fact on students and not instructors.
Martial Arts and Self-Cultivation
A martial art is a system of self-defense with the ultimate goal of self-cultivation. The term martial art is
used in this research, because these systems offer self-defense knowledge and are for self-cultivation purposes.
However, the self-defense systems they learn may not
be practical, especially if outdated weaponry is used.
Martial art practitioners often express feelings of
artistic or self-expression while performing them [Dziwenka 2014]. These systems thus offer much more to
learners than fighting prowess. They provide lessons
in physical education and self-discipline through the
process of learning combat skills as well as a means of
improving one’s self mentally, socially, and (potentially)
spiritually. Draeger describes classical budo, or classical
Japanese martial arts, as “trials of intelligence and moral
courage” [Draeger 2007b]. They consequently also allow
for personal and artistic expressions of combat skills in
manners that may not be effective on the battlefield. For
instance, rarely–if ever–has a soldier been able to run
and then spring off another person’s back in order to kick
four stationary targets before landing as is commonly
displayed in martial arts demonstrations. Such displays
of physical skill are better use for cinematic rather than
battlefield purposes. Nonetheless, some students may
feel such displays of athleticism are self-expressive, and
thus these martial knowledge systems fall within the
realm of art.
Chozan [2010] proclaimed martial arts are “not
something you persevere in just to achieve victory over
others” [21-22]. Consequently, one of the many paradoxes in martial arts training is that students should be
unconcerned with what their opponents do. In combat
systems, the fighter must be utterly focused upon their
enemy because their every lives may hang in the balance.
However, concentration on overcoming an opponent is
a separate concept than working toward improving the
self. The impetus to win is again the variable here; martial arts are not concerned with winning or losing over
an opponent [Takuan 1987] as combat systems or combat sports are (see below). The opponent (or enemy) in
combat sports is external while martial arts teach it is
within. For martial artists, it is their ability to act rather
than defeat the opponent. In this way, the martial artist
is attempting to defeat their fear [Back, Kim 1984: 12].
Staying focused on self-defense perpetuates this
fear, since the learning objective of that type of martial
knowledge is to defeat a physical threat. Webster-Doyle
[1989] states that a martial art teaches the understanding of the self:
When we are confronted by a challenge, by someone
threatening us, we usually react to the situation. Reaction, as it is used here, is a psychological movement to
defend, either physically or with words, that which is perceived as being threatened – which is ourselves. It is easy
to understand defending oneself from physical assault,
but psychological assault is another type of threat. In
being attacked physically, the body is being threatened.
In being attacked psychologically, what is threatened? If
we could actually be aware psychologically at the moment
of attack, we could see what is defending. Isn’t it our self,
an image that thought has created? It seems that the real
work of the Art of Karate is in understanding this “self ”,
for it seems that this self is the root of the psychological
reaction, and therefore is the seat of conflict.
Thus, whereas combat systems are intended to overcome a physical threat, martial arts are intended to look
introspectively in order to become a stronger person.
Indeed, many martial traditions have the objective
of helping practitioners become better people. Morihei
Ueshiba [2010], the founder of Aikido, said a true martial
art is “not a fighting technique based on rash use of force
against another in order to determine who is stronger or
who can win in a contest; rather it is a path centered on
daily training with other kindred souls, mutually working
together to polish and refine their individuals characters” [Ueshiba 2010: 15-16]. Education in the martial arts
thus offers more than physical skills to be used in combat. Practitioners of martial arts are (or at least should)
improving their bodies and characters simultaneously.
They are, in effect, working to becoming a better person as a whole rather than learn how to kill an enemy
combatant. This ideal was also in fact paramount to the
founders of Taekwondo [Choi 1985: 45-68].
To achieve the goal of self-cultivation, martial artists
study a system of self-defense to build self-confidence.
As practitioners advance their physical prowess in their
martial art system, they transfer their incurred self-confidence in their ability to perform the art to other areas of
their lives. As a result, the learning objectives of martial
arts are to train practitioners to weather the trials and
Johnson J.A., Ha P. — Elucidating pedagogical objectives for combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports
tribulations of life; to arm individuals with the mental
and physical stalwartness needed to overcome all types
of hardships whether physical, mental, or spiritual in
nature; and eventually thrive because of difficulty. These
skills are in turn used to become more useful members of
society [Draeger 2007a; Lee 2011; Sakai, Bennett 2010].
Thus, systems of martial art education are methods of mental and social self-cultivation. Their primary
objective is not to prepare practitioners for combat survival, nor do they focus on themes such as fair play or
teamwork as in sports. Instead, martial arts teach combat
techniques as a metaphor of life’s difficulties to prepare
students for physical threats as well as mental and emotional hurtles. Martial artists receive more than physical
education; they acquire life skills since they are taught
to apply lessons learned during training to their everyday lives [Jones & Hanon 2010: 9].
Martial arts also have different moral and ethical
lessons than combat systems possess. The ethical and
moral dilemmas in combat systems are rooted in the
rules of warfare or local governance which cover rules
of force in self-defense situations. Martial artists, on the
other hand, are often concerned with etiquette and proper
behavior in society [Donohue 1998]. Ethics are also at
the forefront of a martial art’s education, especially in
the case of Judo [Cooper, Taylor 2010] and Taekwondo
[Choi 1985: 40]. Students likewise should be concerned
with the ethics of their goals inside and outside their
martial arts school [Choi 2001: 155-156].
Martial artists proclaim their educational process as
never-ending [Lee 2011; Cardillo 2003], because lifelong
martial artists never discontinue trying to achieve the
ultimate goal of a life worth living. In fact, their physical
training is just a means to an end. Students at every age can
learn in this manner, since they can continue to explore
new concepts found within the art. In simpler terms, the
more students practice, the more they learn. Thus, training can never stop in a martial art, because martial artists
are not concentrating only on accomplishing a physical
goal (such as defeating an enemy as in a combat system).
Individuals at the highest ranks of a martial art
indeed often say they are merely students and continue
to find new knowledge within their art [MTAC 2013].
This is not an attempt at humility; it is a statement of
fact. Martial artists should always endeavor to find new
ways to incorporate lessons learned from training into
their daily lives. This attitude of martial artists is most
likely a holdover from samurai education [Funakoshi,
Nakasone 2004] that spawned many of today’s martial
arts. Nonetheless, learning should never stop for martial
artists, because they are (or should be) always finding
new lessons in their martial arts applicable to their daily
lives. The martial knowledge found within martial arts
is infinite, since martial arts training should be continuous. It is the act of training that matters in martial arts,
not what one can do with one’s physical skills.
69
Combat Sports and Competition
A combat sport is a restructuring and the regularization of a martial art for the purposes of competition,
hence why sport is used to describe this martial knowledge system. There are many examples of these martial
knowledge systems, such as wrestling, Judo, Olympic
Taekwondo, and mixed martial arts (MMA). In particular, a select group of martial art techniques are chosen
and often adapted for use in competition. The reasons
for limiting the types of techniques and altering them
are for competitors’ safety and for improving the chances
of success in competition, respectfully. For instance,
only the fastest techniques of Olympic Taekwondo are
employed in competition to enhance the possibility of
scoring points and none are allowed to the eyes or groin.
These were necessary modifications from the original
martial knowledge system in order to achieve the final
objective of participating in tournaments safely.
Combat sports should be considered the competitive side to martial arts. Thus, the primary difference
between martial arts and martial sports is the element of
competition against another individual. Whereas a martial art is primarily a means for self-cultivation where the
goal is to defeat perceived negative aspects of one’s self,
a martial sport exists to provide competitive activities.
Undoubtedly, sports provide self-improvement opportunities for their players, too. Yet, martial arts and combat
sports differ in how and to what extent that cultivation
occurs. As mentioned, martial arts are for self-cultivation and are never-ending pursuits. Combat sports on
the other hand are typically not practiced beyond the
competitors’ ability to compete.
As combat sports are inherently focused on competition (i.e., facing opponents), they teach different
lessons from martial arts. Chun [2002] may have stated
the difference between martial arts and combat sports
best when we wrote, “You play a sport – however you live
the martial arts” [133]. As stated above, martial arts are
taught for moral and societal self-cultivation purposes.
Conversely, combat sports focus on competing against
other athletes, and since many (if not most) competitors desire to win more than simply participate, winning
over others factors into the lessons they learn during
play. In particular, martial athletes must focus primarily on developing the techniques and strategies that win,
rather than reflect on what their training means and how
lessons learned from training can be used in daily life.
Thus, the learning objectives of a martial sport are to provide athletes with the competitive knowledge and skills
needed to win a contest of martial skills and knowledge.
As implied above, martial arts provide lessons applications to life outside of the martial arts school. Likewise,
combat sports provide similar lessons, but the foundation of the two types of education is dissimilar. The
lessons of combat sports are derived during competition
70
“IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”, Vol. 15, no. 4 (2015)
(i.e., struggle against another player), whereas lessons in
martial arts are derived from personal reflection (i.e.,
struggle against the self). Olympic Taekwondo is then
no less valuable than Taekwondo as a martial art since
both provide practitioners a way to improve their lives.
The two systems of martial knowledge only teach how
to win over different types of opponents.
Due to these alternative motivations, athletes must
ignore the higher level components of personal mental and spiritual growth offered by martial arts practice
[Argyraids 2013: 11] and that are not inherently present
while teaching combat systems. In more precise terms,
combat system practitioners and martial sport players
must focus on how to win, not how to become a better
moral being as were their original intended purpose. To
win in either combat or combat sports, individuals need
to focus on the physical skills required to achieve their
respective goals rather than how their physical exertions cultivate their minds and spirits. As the benefits
of sports has been widely reported, it is unnecessary to
restate them here ad nauseam. We do not argue against
combat sports nor claim they possess any less valuable
lessons for competitors. We are only stating the educational objectives, goals, and philosophies of combat
systems and combat sports are dissimilar to combat systems and martial arts.
The fact many martial arts have competitive aspects
[Sakai, Bennett 2010] complicates the defining of the
term martial sport, however. For instance, it is common for some martial art curricula to require students
to attend competitions as part of the requirements for
their next rank exam. Other arts, such as Judo, require
students to not only compete, but to win in order to be
promoted to the next rank. The governing organizations
of martial arts like Hapkido and Kendo organize and promote in tournaments. Consequently, one cannot claim
Hapkido and Kendo are pure martial arts even though
their art primary focuses are on self-defense [Morgan
2009] and self-cultivation [Ozawa 1997], respectfully.
Some martial arts do not promote tournament participation of which Aikido [Ueshiba K. 1987] is the most
well-known. Many Aikido-ka (Aikido practitioners) in
fact believe competition spoils the essence of their martial
art as a means of self-improvement [Herraiz n.d.: 20-25].
The overlap in educational purposes of martial arts
and combat sports therefore complicate distinguishing
martial arts and combat sports. It would seem a little
flexibility in labeling is required. A simple solution is
at hand though. Instructors who view competition as
just one possible means of self-cultivation for their students should use the term martial art for their system of
learning. Conversely, instructors who see competition as
the primary means for developing their students should
label their activities as combat sports. Instructors who
delineate between these two systems and promote the
educational system they provide will eliminate any con-
fusion and pedagogical ethical issues in their students
which arise from ignorance of the differences between
art and sport. In this way, the educational objectives
and goals set instructors set for their students dictate
not only the type of education provided, but the names
of the martial knowledge systems as well.
Combat sports are furthermore separate from martial arts and combat systems in the amount of educational
opportunities they offer. While the lessons of hard work,
dedication, and humility are abundant and a natural
part of competitive sports, they are finite. The combat
sports player has little motivation to continue improving
themselves when they stop playing as their objective of
competing is achieved. When they stop competing, they
typically stop training as well. There is consequently a
limit of the lessons one can learn from playing sports.
Once again, the lesson learned in training and competition are valuable and can improve competitors’ lives,
but on the occasion an athlete stops competing, the lessons stop being current; they survive only in the past.
Once an athlete is no longer capable of competing, the
lessons they can learn from their training and participating in competitions is finished. In this sense, combat
sports are finite because their learning objectives (i.e.,
to compete) have been accomplished.
One point must be mentioned about the educations
of martial arts and combat sports. Martial art practitioners and martial sport athletes must consciously seek
the lessons which can improve their lives, because such
teachings are not an innate aspect of training. If they
were innate, combat systems and combat sports like boxing would have philosophies of their own. Individuals
must, as mentioned above, make the decision to learn
from their experiences and training. If such education
is not encouraged, practitioner’s efforts will become at
best mere exercise and at worst a process of learning
how to inflict physical harm.
Physical Education Concerns
Martial knowledge systems have existed globally for
millennia. For example, soldiers/fighters trained in combat systems have conducted tribal warfare and battles
since recorded since prehistoric times on every inhabited continent. Martial arts, as described in the paper,
were developed in Asia, but are now being developed
in North and South America, Europe, and elsewhere.
Combat sports are nearly as old as combat systems and
examples of which can be seen in Homer’s epic poems to
today’s international Ultimate Fighting Championships
(UFC) events. As such, they speak to something intrinsic
to the human condition.
The educational benefits of such endeavors have
been discussed for nearly as long:
Plato spends a great deal of time in the Republic
talking about the Guardians, the athlete-warriors who
Johnson J.A., Ha P. — Elucidating pedagogical objectives for combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports
would be trained to defend his model human community, and ultimately to rule it. In fact, it’s pretty clear in
the Republic that the Guardians represent the very ideal
of human existence. While their physical training has an
obvious practical, political, and military purpose, Plato
emphasizes that the training of the body is the training
of the soul. Plato’s warriors must develop harmonious
souls, where harshness is balanced with gentleness, and
wisdom and rational ability are exhibited together with
high-spiritedness and bravery. [Lynch 2010]
Yet, the questions of how these qualities are developed still linger. Modern scholars must address this
particular issue in order for students to benefit fully from
their instruction. Today’s educators are encouraged to
define their learning goals and objectives for their students [Dunn 2005]. Yet, a modern educator must first
have first defined the terms combat system, martial art,
and martial art in order to establish their objectives and
goals or their students.
Martial artists and combat sports players must be
aware of the fundamental differences between their
activities [Rhee 2012] not only so they have a better
understanding of what they are participating, but so they
develop themselves according to their endeavors’ educational philosophies. In other words, instructors will
facilitate their students’ educational process by informing them what they are learning and how their training
goals will be met. Just as school teachers identify what
their students will know or be able to do at the end of a
school term, it is only when martial knowledge instructors identify their training objectives that they can create
more effective training regimens. Doing so is important
since students that are cognizant of their learning process
can better determine their progress in relation to their
educational goals and make changes whenever necessary.
Another point to consider is when instructors claim
they are providing education in one type of system but
are actually not, the central component of trust between
student and teacher is broken. Students suffer in these
situations, because they may lose motivation due to their
educational needs not being met.
Wasik [2014] states the ideal learning environment
would incorporate all possible learning objectives [22].
However, this convolutes the learning process. Not
declaring if one practices for a combat, martial art, or
martial sport purpose also prevents students from working toward a clear goal. From an educational standpoint,
this can be detrimental to students’ learning a martial art
because they lack a clear focus toward definitive longterm learning objectives. While informative, these terms
are too vague to determine the educational purposes of
martial arts in general. For the instructor, a failure to
define their educational intent gives rise to several negative backlashes, the least of which are a failure to retain
students, a tarnished reputation, and a resulting loss of
income. Martial art organizations are likewise harmed.
71
The general public will recognize when organizations
promote martial arts education yet focus on sporting
events. Whether they can articulate it or not, students
and potential students alike will question if their system is truly a martial art or sport. They will eventually
shun these organizations’ affiliated schools due to this
lack of continuity.
Conclusions
as martial arts education is becoming more widely
accepted as a means of physical education [Cox 1993:
366], educators and researchers should correspondingly understand the nature of their subject material.
This paper has approached the definition of combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports from a pedagogical
perspective. In doing so, distinctions in each system’s
learning objectives made for the first time.
Educational standards cannot be maintained however without first establishing a curriculum’s learning
objectives and goals. Martial art instructors cannot establish their educational objectives until they can articulate
their ultimate purpose for teaching the martial art. Competent educators will use their final martial knowledge
learning objective, whether it is for combat, self-cultivation, sporting purposes, or otherwise, to establish
their students’ long-term objectives. Only then can they
devise weekly or even daily goals for students effectively.
As anecdotal evidence and research has continually
showed martial arts provide benefits beyond the realm of
physical fitness [Trulson 1986: 1131-1140; Harris 1998:
484; Ripley 2003: 2; Seng 2006: 86-88] and are being
included in some schools’ academic programs [Mt. View
Elementary School n.d.; McFarland 2011], it has never
been more important to define what martial arts are
and ensure instructors are teaching them accordingly.
Doing so is critical when we realize martial knowledge
is being used to help students overcome social and emotional issues [Seng 2006: 86-88], ADD [Harris 1998:
484], juvenile delinquency [Trulson 1986: 1131-1140],
and English as a Second Language (ESL) difficulties, as
well as learn teamwork [McFarland 2011].
Furthermore, combat systems, martial arts, and
combat sports cannot be approached philosophically
until a clear definition for each is determined. A lack of
proper understanding of their final goals prevents clear
conclusions and accurate explorations of their methodologies. Many organizations, leaders, and authors have
propagated this problem by relying on legend and oral
histories of their system when discussing their systems’
philosophies. As more historical documents are being
translated and disseminated, these erroneous interpretations are being amended languidly [Lorge 2012]. The
fact remains that decades of articles, books, television
shows, and movies have cemented these legends as if
72
“IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”, Vol. 15, no. 4 (2015)
they were facts. It will take many more years to revert
this unfortunate trend.
Accordingly, if martial knowledge instructors wish
to ever achieve the same respect as their classroom counterparts, they should maintain identical pedagogical
standards. One of the most central of these standards
is the establishment of clear educational objectives and
goals for students. More essential to lay martial knowledge instructors are the clearly defined (and consequently
better understood) objectives that will guide their daily
lesson plans. When students know their educational
objectives, learning is facilitated [SABES and ACLS 2008;
Berkeley], because students can understand their learning process and be able to determine their progress in
relation to their personal educational goals. Moreover,
well-define “learning goals/outcomes contribute to a
structure that surrounds a course and can aid in selecting
appropriate graded and ungraded assessments, selecting relevant content for the course, and enhancing the
assessment or grading practices” [UC Regents 2015].
As mentioned previously, one of the limitations of
this paper is that the terms combat system, martial art,
and martial sport are quite delineated. Clearly, martial
knowledge instructors can establish more than the three
learning objectives outlined above for their students of
which physical exercise is possibly the most obvious. This
research also does not examine how short-term education goals can influence the long-term learning objectives
described herein. These topics should be explored by
future researchers.
References
1. Allen B. (2013), Games of sport, works of art, and the striking beauty of Asian martial arts, “Journal of the Philosophy
of Sport”, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 241-254.
2. Allender S., Cowburn G., Foster C. (2006), Understanding
participation in sport and physical activity among children
and adults: A review of qualitative studies, “Health Education Research”, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 826-835.
3. Argyraids K. (2013), Shotokan Karate-Do: Hirokazu Kanazawa, “Budo International Magazine”, vol. 42, pp. 6-11,
retrieved from www.budointernational.net/content/6-magazine, accessed on 3rd of October 2014.
4. Back A., Kim D. (1984), The future course of the Eastern
martial arts, “Quest”, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 7-14.
5. Choi H.H. (1985), Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do, volume 2,
International Taekwon-Do Federation, Canada.
6. Choi H.H. (2001), Taekwon-Do and I, volume one, motherland in turmoil, Master Publications, Denver, CO.
7. Chozan I. (2010), The mysterious skills of the old cat [in:]
“The Samurai Mind: Lessons from Japan’s Master Warriors,” Hellman C. [ed.], Tuttle Press, Tokyo, pp. 16-24.
8. Chun R. (2002), Taekwondo: Spirit and Practice Beyond
Self-defense, YMAA, Roslindale, MA.
9. Cooper S., Taylor T. (2010), Armbarring the common good,
“Martial Arts and Philosophy”, Priest G., Young D. (eds.),
Open Court, Chicago, IL, pp. 71-80.
10. Cardillo Joseph (2003), Be Like Water: Practical Wisdom
from the Martial Arts, Hachette Central Publishing: New
York, NY.
11. Cox J.C. (1993), Traditional Asian martial arts training: A
review, “Quest”, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 366-388.
12. Cynarski W.J., Obodynski K., Zeng H.Z. (2012), Martial
arts anthropology for sport pedagogy and physical education,
“Romanian Journal for Multidimensional Education”, vol.
4, no. 2, pp. 129–152.
13. Cynarski W.J., Skowron J. (2014), An analysis of the conceptual language used for the general theory of martial arts
- Japanese, Polish and English terminology, “Ido Movement
for Culture. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”, vol. 14,
no. 3, pp. 49-66. doi: 10.14589/ido.14.3.7
14. Donohue J.J. (1998), Herding the Ox: The Martial Arts as a
Moral Metaphor, Tuttle Press, Wethersfield, CT.
15. Draeger D.F. (2007a), Classical Bujutsu: The Martial Arts
and Ways of Japan (4th printing), Shambhala Publications,
Inc., Boston, MA.
16. Draeger D.F. (2007b), Classical Budo: The Martial Arts
and Ways of Japan (4th printing), Shambhala Publications,
Inc., Boston, MA.
17. Dunn S. (2005). Philosophical Foundations of Education:
Connecting Theory to Practice, Pearson Merrill Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
18. Dziwenka R. (2014), Applying a Buddhist Paradigm of
Spiritual Practice to Contemporary Martial Art/Martial
Sport Study, “Journal of the International Association for
Taekwondo Research,” 1(1), pp. 14-21.
19. Funakoshi G., Nakasone G. (2004), The Twenty Guiding
Principles of Karate, Teramoto J. [trans.], Kodansha, Tokyo.
20. Harris M.J. (1998). Tai-kwan-do in relation to ADD, “Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health”, vol. 34, p. 484.
21. Herraiz S. (n.d.), Kissshomaru Ueshiba, “Budo International Magazine”, vol. 52, pp. 20-25, retrieved from www.
budointernational.net/content/6-magazine; accessed on
3rd of October 2014.
22. Jones G.W., Mackay K.S., Peters D.M. (2006, July 1), Participation motivation in martial artists in the west midlands
region of England, “Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, Combat Sports Special Issue” (CSSI), vol. 5, pp. 28-34.
23. Jones L.C., Hanon M.J. (2010), The Way of Kata in Kodokan Judo, “Journal of Asian Martial Arts,” 19(4), pp. 8-37.
24. Kano J. (2005), Mind over Muscle: Writings from the Founder
of Judo, N.H. Ross [trans.], Kodansha, Tokyo.
25. Kano J. (1989), The contribution of Jiudo to education [in:]
The Overlook Martial Arts Reader: Classic Writings on Philosophy and Technique, Nelson R.F. [ed.], Overlook Press,
Woodstock, NY.
26. Kaufman D. (2015, January 17), Sun Tzu, The art of war
and your portfolio, Financial Post, retrieved from http://
business.financialpost.com/2013/08/17/sun-tzu-the-artof-war-and-your-portfolio/, accessed 19th of January 2015.
Johnson J.A., Ha P. — Elucidating pedagogical objectives for combat systems, martial arts, and combat sports
27. Lee K.H. (2011), What Is Taekwondo Poomsae? (2nd ed.),
Osung Publishing Company, Seoul.
28. Lorge P.A. (2012), Chinese Martial Arts: From Antiquity
to the Twenty-first Century, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY.
29. Lynch J.J. (2010), Plato and the Shaolin Monks Square Off,
Martial Arts and Philosophy: Beating and Nothingness,
Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago and La Salle, IL.
30. McFarland A. (2011, October 11), Teaching Taekwondo in
City Schools, retrieved from http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/
story?section=news/education&id=8403538
31. Morgan D. (2009), Warrior Mind: Strategy and Philosophy
from the Martial Arts, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, IL.
32. MTAC. (2013, August 19), Interview with Grand Master
Choi, retrieved from http://www.itf-administration.com/
articles.asp?arturn=3724, accessed on 19th of August 2013.
33. Mt. View Elementary School (n.d.), Tae Kwon Do, retrieved
from www.mtviewes.mnps.org/Page39563.aspx, accessed
on 1st of March 2014.
34. Ozawa H. (1997), Kendo: The Definitive Guide, Kodansha
International, Tokyo.
35. Phillips J.J., Phillips P.P. (2008), Beyond Learning Objectives, ASTD Press, Alexandria, VA.
36. Rhee K.H. (2012), This Is Taekwon-Do, Media Insight,
United Kingdom.
37. Ripley A. (2003), An Awesome Alternative to Drugs: Martial Arts Practice as Treatment for Children with AD/HD,
retrieved from http://www.milehighkarate.com/pdf/ma_
add.pdf, accessed 1st of May 2012.
38. SABES, ACLS (2008), SABES/ACLS Lesson Planning
Resource Guide, retrieved from http://www.sabes.org/sites/
sabes.org/files/resources/lesson-planning-guide-2008.pdf,
accessed on 17th of May 2015.
39. Sakai T., Bennett A. (2010), A Bilingual Guide to the History of Kendo, Ski Journal Company, Tokyo.
40. Seng N.S. (2006), English abstract [in:] Effect of Taekwondo
Training on Intellectual and Emotional Development and
Self-esteem of Primary School Students (masters dissertation), Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Korea [in Korean].
41. Stefanek K.A. (2004), An Exploration of Participation
Motives Among Collegiate Taekwondo Participants (PhD
dissertation), Kinesiology Publications, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, retrieved from http://www.oregonpdf.
org/print-script.cfm?path=../pdf%5C&src =PSY2337Stefanek(17-2).pdf, accessed on 6th of May 2013.
42. Stevens J. (2013), The Way of Judo: A Portrait of Jigoro Kano
& his Students, Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston, MA.
43. Takuan S. (1987), The Unfettered Mind, W.S. Wilson [trans.],
Kodansha, Tokyo.
44. Trulson M.E. (1986), Martial Arts Training: A Novel “Cure”
for Juvenile Delinquency, “Human Relations”, vol. 39, pp.
1131-1140.
45. UC Regents (2015), Learning Goals/Outcomes, University
of California Berkeley Center for Teaching and Learning,
retrieved from https://teaching.berkeley.edu/learning-goalsoutcomes, accessed on 17th of May 2015.
73
46. Ueshiba K. (1987), The Spirit of Aikido, Unno T. [trans.],
Kodansha, Tokyo.
47. Ueshiba M. (2010), Preface [in:] Morihei Ueshiba’s The
Heart of Aikido: The Philosophy of Takemusu Aiki. Stephens
J. [trans.], Kodansha, Tokyo.
48. Wasik J. (2014), Three Areas of Taekwon-do Identification and Practice, “Ido Movement for Culture. Journal of
Martial Arts Anthropology”, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 22-26. doi:
10.14589/ido.14.3.3
49. Webster-Doyle T. (1989), Karate: The Art of Empty Self,
Atrium Publications, Ojai, CA.
Naświetlanie celów pedagogicznych systemów
walki, sztuk walki i sportów walki
Słowa kluczowe: znajomość sztuk walki, wychowanie
fizyczne, samodoskonalenie
Abstrakt
Dla celów niniejszej pracy, nauka o sztukach walki została
sklasyfikowana jako zebrany zasób wiedzy dotyczący umiejętności fizycznych przeznaczonych do celów samoobrony,
który poprzednio przez naukowców został zdefiniowany jako
„sztuki walki”. Każdy system wiedzy o sztukach walki zawiera unikalne umiejętności i metody poruszania ciała w celu
samoobrony. Umiejętności te mają albo filozoficzne, albo praktyczne uzasadnienia. Tak, jak każdy system używa ciała w
różny sposób, tak każdy cel nauczania wiedzy o walce będzie
się różnić pomiędzy systemami.
W niniejszej pracy autorzy klasyfikują trzy zasadnicze rodzaje
systemów wiedzy o walce, a mianowicie: systemy walki, sztuki
walki i sporty walki w zależności od ich ostatecznych celów
nauczania. Systemy walki, jako prekursorzy tego, co powszechnie nazywa się dziś sztukami walki, są systemami samoobrony i
walki, które mogą lub nie muszą wykorzystywać broń. Ostatecznym celem systemów walki jest ochrona własnego kraju, mienia
lub osobowa/indywidualna. Ochraniają to co jest cenne: życie,
rodzinę, kulturę, stabilną sytuację w kraju oraz inne cenne
materialne i niematerialne skarby. Termin systemy walki używany tutaj, ma odzwierciedlać cel do badania umiejętności
fizycznych występujących w tych systemach; czyli systemy
walki są wykorzystywane wyłącznie w celu przetrwania w sytuacjach życia lub śmierci. Te systemy wiedzy „należy rozumieć
przede wszystkim jako umiejętności wojskowe, a nie metody
własnego samodoskonalenia lub działalności religijnej”. Draeger [2007a] dodaje, że systemy walki są tworzone przez i dla
osób angażujących się w działania bojowe.
Systemy walki są stosowane zarówno dla samoobrony lub do
celów agresywnych, ale mogą być stosowane i/lub zmodyfikowane do innych celów, takich jak utrzymanie pokoju (czyli
techniki samoobrony, których uczą się funkcjonariusze policji).
Koncentrują się one zazwyczaj na fizycznych formach i strategiach walki oraz zwykle nie stoi za nim ezoteryczna filozofia.
Przykładami systemów bojowych są Japońskie jujutsu i program
walki dla amerykańskiej marynarki wojennej (MCMAP). Celem
74
“IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”, Vol. 15, no. 4 (2015)
uczenia się systemów walki jest więc zaopatrzenie żołnierzy i
bojowników w niezbędne fizyczne umiejętności potrzebne do
przetrwania na polu walki za wszelką cenę.
Lekcje pozyskane z systemów bojowych są jednak ograniczone. Jako swój główny cel stawiają umiejętności przetrwania;
motywacja do nauki czegokolwiek innego jest tłumiona. Gdy
student nauczy się umiejętności walki, wymaga się od niego
wykonywania tych umiejętności, dopóki nie będą już potrzebne. Nie ma potrzeby, aby szukać innych źródeł wiedzy, jako
że ostateczny cel nauki został spełniony. Jednak faktem pozostaje to, że lekcje wyciągnięte z systemów walki mogą posiadać
zastosowanie pozbawione przemocy. Podczas gdy zamiarem
większości systemów walki nie jest pomaganie uczniom stać
się lepszymi ludźmi, można jednak wyciągnąć z nich etyczne
i moralne lekcje.
Sztuka walki, według drugiej klasyfikacji, to system samoobrony z ostatecznym celem samodoskonalenia. Termin sztuka
walki jest stosowany w tej pracy, ponieważ systemy te oferują
wiedzę samoobrony i są używane do samodoskonalenia. Ponadto praktykujący często wyrażają siebie lub uczucia artystyczne
podczas ćwiczeń [Dziwenka 2014]. W ten sposób systemy
te oferują znacznie więcej niż tylko waleczność. Zapewniają
one lekcje wychowania fizycznego i samodyscypliny w procesie uczenia się umiejętności walki, a także sposób poprawy
samego siebie psychicznie, społecznie i (potencjalnie) duchowo.
Pozwalają one także na wyrażenia artystycznych umiejętności
walecznych, które nie mogą być skuteczne na polu bitwy. Na
przykład, rzadko, jeśli w ogóle, żołnierz jest w stanie biec, a
następnie odbić się od pleców innej osoby, aby kopnąć cztery
stacjonarne cele przed lądowaniem, jak jest powszechnie przedstawiane w pokazach sztuk walki. Niektórzy uczniowie mogą
uważać, że takie pokazy mogą wchodzić w sferę sztuki.
Adepci sztuk walki mają więcej styczności z wychowaniem
fizycznym; nabywają umiejętności życiowych, ponieważ
uczą się stosować doświadczenia zdobyte w trakcie szkolenia w codziennym życiu. Sztuki walki udzielają innych lekcji
moralnych i etycznych niż systemy walki. Dylematy etyczne i
moralne w systemach walki są zakorzenione w zasadach wojny
i samorządności lokalnej, które obejmują zasady obowiązujące
w sytuacjach samoobrony. Zawodnicy, z drugiej strony, często
zajmują się etykietą i prawidłowym zachowaniem się w społeczeństwie. Etyka jest również w czołówce edukacji sztuk walki,
zwłaszcza w przypadku judo i taekwondo.
Sport walki jest restrukturyzacją i uregulowaniem sztuki walki
dla celów współzawodnictwa. Istnieje wiele przykładów systemów walki jak zapasy, judo i taekwondo olimpijskie. W
szczególności, wybrane grupy technik sztuk walki są często
wybierane i przystosowane do zastosowania w zawodach.
Przyczyny ograniczania rodzajów technik i ich zmiany są
podyktowane względami bezpieczeństwa zawodników i dla
poprawy szans na sukces w turniejach. Na przykład, tylko
najszybsze techniki taekwondo olimpijskiego są wykorzystywane w turniejach w celu zwiększenia ilości zdobytych punktów
i żadne z nich nie są dozwolone, by zranić przeciwnika w okolicy
oczu lub pachwiny. Były to niezbędne modyfikacje oryginalnego systemu w celu zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa zawodników.
Sporty walki powinny być uważane za rywalizacyjną stronę
sztuk walki. Tak więc główną różnicą między sztuką walki a
sportu walki jest elementem rywalizacji. Podczas, gdy sztuka
walki jest przede wszystkim środkiem do samodoskonalenia,
gdzie celem jest pokonanie negatywnych aspektów samego siebie, sport walki ma zapewnić rywalizację. Niewątpliwie, sport
też zapewnia możliwości samodoskonalenia. Jednak sztuki
walki i sporty walki różnią się. Niezastosowanie rozróżnienia
podstawowych celów sztuk walki i sportów walki powoduje
ponadto zamieszanie, nie tylko co do ich ostatecznego celu,
ale i sposobu ich osiągnięcia.
Sporty walki różnią się od sztuk i systemów walki w szansach
edukacyjnych, które oferują. Chociaż lekcje ciężkiej pracy,
poświęcenia i pokory są znaczną i naturalną częścią sportu
wyczynowego, to są ograniczone. Zawodnicy sportów walki
mają niewielką motywację do dalszego doskonalenia się lub
nawet przestają uprawiać sport, kiedy przestają brać udział w
turniejach. Istnieje zatem limit lekcji wynikający z uprawiania
sportu. Chociaż trening i zawody są cenne, to gdy zostaną one
zaprzestane stają się częścią przeszłości. W tym sensie sporty
walki są ograniczone, ponieważ ich cele edukacyjne (tzn. rywalizacja) zostały osiągnięte.
W edukacji sztuki walki stają się coraz bardziej powszechnie
akceptowane, jako środek wychowania fizycznego [Cox 1993:
366], badacze powinni zrozumieć naturę ich przedmiotu. Niestety, wiele aspektów sztuk walki jest trudnych do zrozumienia
bez wieloletniej praktyki. Praca ta przybliża definicję systemów
walki, sztuk walki, i sportów walki z pedagogicznego punktu
widzenia. W ten sposób wyróżnienie celów nauczania każdego
z wymienionych systemów jest dokonane po raz pierwszy.
W związku z powyższym, w przypadku gdy instruktorzy sztuk
walki chcą osiągnąć podobny szacunek jak pedagodzy, powinni
trzymać się identycznych standardów pedagogicznych. Jednym
z nich jest ustalenie jasnych celów i zadań edukacyjnych dla
uczniów. Kiedy uczniowie znają swoje cele edukacyjne, mogą
zrozumieć swój proces uczenia się i być w stanie określić swoje
postępy w odniesieniu do osobistych celów edukacyjnych.